It is about civil marriage between two ocnsenting adults. that’s it. Freedom of speech and religion are guaranteed by our federal and state constitutions, and they are sacrosanct. that asshat mormon lawyer shouldn’t be practicing law if he doesn’t know this, let alone claiming in public.that they are threatened by marriage.

you can teach your children whatever you want. that doesn’t mean my marriage disappears becuase you don’t tihnk I should have the irght.

so please, don’t tell me about charity. Caritas means love. this isn’t about love. It’s about how much the very existence of gay people bothers some straight people.

So many names, I hardly know where to begin….
First, my post was called a hit-and-run. Guilty as charged, I googled into this site and left a comment. It was bad form to not check back sooner. Sorry.

To be clear, my post was not intended to say anything more than the yes on 8 ads are not entirely without merit, and we could use more considerate intra-camp communication (as the mission statement of this site describes). Having read more of the posts here, I see I was probably unwise to post anything. I apologize for upsetting any of you.

As to responding to the eager responses above…Having spent the last 2 days debating with folks face-to-face here at UC Davis, it’s pretty certain that no online conversation of this issue has a chance of being at all productive with a noncharitable opposition. Consequently, I’m 100% fine letting you folks assume I have no answers for your responses, if it’ll make you feel a little happier.

If you’ve any desire to engage, you can reach me at [offsite link removed]

but if I don’t respond that day, it’s not because I’m a hit&run guy, or because I don’t ahve answers. It’s because I have a lot of other stuff going on. Best wishes.

]]>By: Ben in Oaklandhttp://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2008/10/22/4092#comment-19683
Sat, 25 Oct 2008 15:44:25 +0000http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/?p=4092#comment-19683More to the point, it isn’t that “gay marriage will be taught in the schools.” I have no idea what that phrase means.

The real issue is the subtext; the queers are gonna get your children.

2. If you are going to use Massachusetts law as a “It will happen here!” warning, then you’d best be prepared to explain why, in the past four years since SSM has been legal in Mass., none of the horrible catastrophes you warned about have occurred.

Then, of course, there’s the blindingly obvious fact that SSM has been humming along nicely in California for the past five months, during which time our public school system has not been invaded by bands of raving homosexuals demanding to indoctrinate kindergartners.

Nor, for that matter, has a single church been sued for refusing to perform a same-sex wedding, nor has a single minister been sued for hate speech, nor has a single religious college been forced to house a same-sex couple, nor…

You get the picture. But the Toms and BeBes, who will cling to any lie in order to preserve their rapidly-eroding illusion of safety from the Big, Bad Queers, will never get the picture. They’re capable, but they’ve paralyzed their own synapses through deliberate ignorance.

Oh, and by the way… Before another hit-and-run “Christian” cites the “indoctrination” of innocent tots bused to SF City Hall for the wedding of their evil, child-recruiting lesbian teacher, everyone might want to take a look at a most enlightening post at Mormons for Marriage, which is excellent ammunition against this particularly nasty attack (which, I’ve noticed, is the focal point of the latest Yes on 8 TV ad). When you know what Creative Arts Charter School is all about, it’s crystal clear that this was hardly some insidious plan to recruit the kiddos. This school is heavily driven by “parent and family involvement” — for starters, parents commit to volunteering 40 hours a year.

The post spells out everything one needs to know about the wedding field trip — which the 8 camp, of course, doesn’t want the public to know; i.e.:

“First, the children and parents were well-acquainted with their teacher because sheâ€™d been with them throughout all of Kindergarten and because of the high level of parental involvement required at the school.

“Second, the field trip was organized by a volunteer parent who wanted to surprise the teacher. Even though it was organized by a parent, permission slips were required. No children were forced to attend the wedding, in fact, at least two children remained at the school. …

-[snip]-

“Finally, these parents chose this school for this children, and all of the parents who allowed their children to attend the wedding chose to educate their children in this way. If we donâ€™t want schools to teach our children things we donâ€™t believe, we shouldnâ€™t be removing the option for other parents to teach their children things they believe, either.”

Worth the full read at the link — in fact, required reading, as the 8 camp has only just begun to frame this as a prime example of “homosexual indoctrination of schoolchildren.”

Sorry to get O/T, but I figured it was important to add here, as the lesbian wedding incident is getting high play, and we’re going to have to run defense on it.

You very artfully left out CEC 51550, which gives parents the right to know what their kids are being taught and to pull their kids out of class if what is being taught conflicts with their beliefs (any violation of the code, of course, would warrant a lawsuit).

I say “artfully” because, as a self-proclaimed credential holder, you should know that.

Given that, and your insistence that Prop 8 be passed because it will prevent gay marriage from being taught in schools (uhhh, it won’t), I can only guess that you merely don’t want kids to know that gay people exist and, by extension, would ultimately like to see gay people shoved (and kicked, and punched, and legislated against) back into the closet.

]]>By: BeBehttp://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2008/10/22/4092#comment-19644
Sat, 25 Oct 2008 02:43:20 +0000http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/?p=4092#comment-19644California schools are not required to teach comprehensive sexual education. However, if they choose to do so they MUST teach “respect for marriage and committed relationships” (CA Education Code 51933). Guess how many schools decide to teach Sex Ed? 96%- virtually all schools. Jack O’Connell’s statement that, “our schools aren’t required to teach anything about marriage,” is an absolute joke!! Please don’t be fooled by this sneaky use of words coming from the no on 8 side. Almost every school in Ca will discuss marriage!